American-developed war-themed videogames “tend to protect and justify America’s interests” according to a professor from a Japanese university.

Apparently referring to the U.S. Army game America’s Army specifically, Peter Mantello, a media studies lecturer at Ritsumeikan University in Japan, made the remarks during the War 2.0 conference, which took place on the Australian National University campus. The conference addresses political violence and new media reports Aussie newspaper The Age.

“Flatten the adversary” is a typical approach of these types of titles added Mantello, who also discussed how foreign landscapes and cities are characteristically depicted in war games based in the Middle East:

The cityscapes are marked as primitive space. They show no sign of ordinary life or ordinary people … The special op soldier … poses as the necessary solution, the civilising instrument of modernisation, the democratic equaliser who through superior technological hardware and gutsy marine bravado will vanquish pre-modern evil.

Mantello’s bio on the War 2.0 conference website lists him as a “serious gamer,” who’s recent research “examines how the aesthetics, dynamics and politics of First Person Shooter (FPS) gameplay… transform videogames into poignant cultural artifacts.”

As we saw with Grand Theft Auto IV (and all its incarnations), people came out of the wood work. To bad mouth it, say its the scourge of our times. It horrible effects children, and deranges their moral self (not to mention their spiritual one). Who were the one's doing all this ranting?

The ones who wanted to jump on the bandwagon, and get their name (or organization) that no one had heard of before, in to the press. Become famous (if only for a few moments), and maybe try to bring followers to their cause. We'll see more idiots like this has the months draw on, from all sorts of places. Its all for their ego, and has NOTHING, to do with children, or post-war Vets from Iraq & Afghanistan. It'll have nothing to do with what the orginal idiot complained about (that started this thread on Game Politics).

So, lets keep this in mind, when we heard of the latest wannabe-Jack Thompson comes screaming on to Fox News to bamble a bunch of incohorent, useless, and ill-informed crap, to people that dont know better.

First of all, as has been pointed out already in this thread, a major zone of conflict in the world today is the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. Do you want them to set a realistic near future war scenario in CANADA?

Secondly, the Russians have admitted in the past that they are having "difficulties" coming up with the full accounting of their entire nuclear arsenal. There have been ultranationalist hardline attempts on the Russian government since the fall of communism and let's not ignoring the substantial democratic retreat that has occurred under the Putin/Medevev government complex.

Bottom line it is extremely easy to see a scenario like that which played out in COD4 from actually happening and like it or not who would be the most likely military forces to be involved? The Canadians? The French? The Norwegians? The Spanish? The Mexicans? The Brazilians?

No, the most likely agencies involved are a coalition of U.S., British, Australian, and Russian troops, with some other nations making contributions.

Finally, there are very good reasons why 99% of the Arabs in COD 4 were bad. As has been pointed out rendering civilians and other "non-combatants" takes substantial processing power that in the context of making a GAME is better sent towards enemy behavior, rendering and movement. Not to mention that there would have been a MASSIVE shitstorm if you could, even accidentally, kill civilians, the game would never have gotten out of the gate.

I'm not going to comment on your Black Hawk Down, my uncle was a pilot in that battle so I really can't look at it objectively.

No, this is called *politics*. And propaganda. Just because you consider it "REALITY" doesn't mean it actually is.

> First of all, as has been pointed out already in this
> thread, a major zone of conflict in the world today is
> the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

That wasn't my point. Blatant racism and stereotypes were.

> Do you want them to set a realistic near future war
> scenario in CANADA?

Also not my point.

> Secondly, the Russians have admitted in the past that
> they are having "difficulties" coming up with the full
> accounting of their entire nuclear arsenal.

Which allows WHAT to be correct? The fact that the game basically says they are incompetent? Or that the West should intervene at any cost?

> There have been ultranationalist hardline attempts on the
> Russian government since the fall of communism

WHICH HAVE ALL FAILED TO THIS VERY DAY. And the last serious attempt was not last year but almost SOME 20 YEARS ago.

> and let's not ignoring the substantial democratic retreat
> that has occurred under the Putin/Medevev government
> complex.

Very much comparable to the loss of democratic rights and a massive engagement in warmongering in the USA and UK. Thank you for the reminder!

Besides, compared to Yelzin (who willingly followed the Chicago Boys to sell off his country and was therefore considered a "good guy" by the West) there have been far more democratic rights than before!

It's just the point that your media will show any attempt of the Russian government to interfere with freedom of speech and civil rights as a "proof that they are still evil communists" while any attempt of your very own government to do that is called "fight against terrorism" - and almost immediately dropped under the carpet.

> Bottom line it is extremely easy to see a scenario like
> that which played out in COD4 from actually happening

Bullshit! It's propaganda as well.

> and like it or not who would be the most likely military
> forces to be involved?

Which of course could only be...

> The Canadians? The French? The Norwegians? The Spanish?
> The Mexicans? The Brazilians?

Ah, you actually mean the U.N. Which your brave government has been undermining (e.g. by not paying) for DECADES and your media is considering "weak". "Divide et impera!" US propaganda at work.

> No, the most likely agencies involved are a coalition of
> U.S., British, Australian, and Russian troops, with some
> other nations making contributions.

Coalition of the Willing Reloaded. Strange, no word of the U.N. Not on your radar, isn't it?

> Finally, there are very good reasons why 99% of the Arabs
> in COD 4 were bad.

Now we arrive at the TECHNICAL issues.

> Not to mention that there would have been a MASSIVE
> shitstorm if you could, even accidentally, kill
> civilians, the game would never have gotten out of the
> gate.

Hm, but some other games have actually SUCCEEDED in just
doing that. "Inacceptable civilian casualty." Besides, you don't see ANY civilians at all ANYWHERE. Only in one single cutscene at the beginning. They just don't exist. It would be somehow OK if it wouldn't fit into an agenda of showing these conflicts to be only "good vs. evil", soldiers vs. terrorists.

And it's just so strange that especially in the current conflicts down in the middle east (Iraq, Afghanistan) the so called "asymmetric" warfare has almost become the standard. Which just means that EVERY F**KING CIVILIAN is considered an enemy combatant. Or sometimes just called "collateral damage" if killed by the dozen. Thank you for the reminder!

> I'm not going to comment on your Black Hawk Down, my
> uncle was a pilot in that battle so I really can't look
> at it objectively.

My own family was split in two during the Nazi era. Two of my great grand uncles fought to the last bullet for the Fuehrer (and not just as grunts and because they had to) - while a number of my jewish relatives was murdered in concentration camps.

And you Americans wonder why we Europeans have become so anti-war and touchy on those matters?

You present your arguments as if they are facts, while at the same time telling me "Just because you call it reality doesn't mean it is."

The UN is most certainly on my radar, how's Libya doing on the human rights committee? I'm sorry, the UN is a fairly impotent organization. It had a lot of promise but has degenerated into a glorified debating society.

You're reading an awful lot into a game, maybe through your own prism of bias? It presents a realistic "what if" scenario. Deciding that it must be "propoganda" seems to me to be somewhat prejudiced of you. What any American game made game that creates a scenario in which the U.S. is a good guy is some kind of propogands tool?

Me thinks you have a prejudice against Americans that clouds your judgment.

What blatant racism and stereotypes? That there are ruthless, brutal dictators in the Middle East and Horn of Africa? That there has been a long history of violent conflict and civil war in the region? Sorry that's not blatant racism that's REALITY.

You're just looking for a reason to be correct and to justify your OWN prejudice against Americans so you scream "propoganda" anytime they are depicted in a decent light.

COD 4 was meant to be an arcade style shooter. It's a "run and gun" game. It's not meant to be a deep tactical simulator in which civilian issues are a major point. That doesn't make it propoganda, that makes it a run and gun shooter designed for fast paced action.

Obviously it isn't REALISTIC, if it was your screen would do a lot more than turn red when you get shot.

No, you're trying to push your point of view and I'm having a different opinion. It's called a discussion.

At least, it would be, if you wouldn't play judge and jury coming to a sentence without actually following the debate.

> You present your arguments as if they are facts, while at
> the same time telling me "Just because you call it
> reality doesn't mean it is."

Exactly my point! And we could continue this thread forever by simply repeating this fact over and over. ;)

> The UN is most certainly on my radar, how's Libya doing
> on the human rights committee?

This discussion is not about the UN. It's about racism and propaganda in COD4. And - maybe to a certain extent - the fact that you believe a certain propaganda while I believe in something different.

> I'm sorry, the UN is a fairly impotent organization.

Yep. Especially if the biggest contributor doesn't pay up his fees, undermines its major policies and counteracts against its agenda with his own organisations.

> It had a lot of promise but has degenerated into a
> glorified debating society.

Which is exactly the same thing that Hitler said about the League of Nations...

> You're reading an awful lot into a game

"It's only a game", I know. And movies are only movies. And books are only books. Subliminal? Mimetic? Ah, it's all just media, not real. Like the Bible, the Communist Manifest and Mein Kampf.

> maybe through your own prism of bias?

Well, as stated above, the very same can be said about you. Obviously a strong believer in the "facts" as preached by some and believed by many others. And if only enough people believe in something it will become real. Won't it?

> It presents a realistic "what if" scenario.

By using current events, racist stereotypes and big power ideology as a backdrop.

> Deciding that it must be "propoganda" seems to me to
> be somewhat prejudiced of you.

And not calling it propaganda because you yourself believe in the very same politics this game promotes is actually quite naive.

But then again, it's only a game - just like real life politics. One loses, one wins, two million civilians die.

> What any American game made game that creates a scenario
> in which the U.S. is a good guy is some kind of propogands tool?

What movie that creates a scenario in which Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany are the good guys is some kind of propaganda tool?

It all depends on whether you see a country as the "good guys" or not. Which raises the question if any country has the right to be "better" than the rest of the world.

> Me thinks you have a prejudice against Americans that > clouds your judgment.

Well, and me thinks that you lack knowledge, criticism and experience to judge politics and people.

> What blatant racism and stereotypes?

It's all in my answer. I don't need to repeat myself.

> That there are ruthless, brutal dictators in the Middle
> East and Horn of Africa?

And all people living there are shown as terrorists or violent psychopaths... Fox News.

> That there has been a long history of violent conflict
> and civil war in the region?

Mostly initiated and fueled by great powers - for centuries. Check out the Afghan wars in the 19th century. And I also bet they don't teach you a lot about William Walker.

And now we have a game that basically says, "we need to go there and do the right thing, take the nukes away, bring freedom, kill them all". But it's only a game - you know, for young people who don't take it serious or don't care. No propaganda, only entertainment. Just like the movies Goebbels produced in the 1930s (or better: let produce).

> Sorry that's not blatant racism that's REALITY.

And a very limited scope of reality it is.

> You're just looking for a reason to be correct

I don't give a rat's ass about correctness! I enjoy the hell out of Saints Row 2 and Soldier of Fortune. Even that graphics demo CrySis was enjoyable - although extremely ridiculous in a politically context (the "evil commie bastards" aka Northern Koreans as an enemy is like Monaco declaring war on the US).

> and to justify your OWN prejudice against Americans

If it's based on facts it's not a prejudice. At least that's the way you want to explain to me that your point of view is "reality".

> so you scream "propoganda" anytime they are depicted
> in a decent light.

You're evading my questions.

> COD 4 was meant to be an arcade style shooter.

Ah, and that's why they chose THAT setting during that time. What a COINCIDENCE!

> It's a "run and gun" game.

And Rambo: First Blood Part II is only a "run and gun" action movie. Political context? Nah. Never heard of.

> It's not meant to be a deep tactical simulator
> in which civilian issues are a major point.

Just like Fox News - if every civilian is a terrorist, why show them at all?

> That doesn't make it propoganda, that makes it a
> run and gun shooter designed for fast paced action.

And propaganda must always be declared as such. They even say so on the poster: "Hello, this movie/game/book is propaganda."

> Obviously it isn't REALISTIC, if it was your screen
> would do a lot more than turn red when you get shot.

Propaganda always shows the enemies as subhuman and the act of removing them as "necessary" and "humane". A clean act. No blood. At least not too much. Many thanks for the reminder!

1) He specifically refers to AA? Let's see a game, made by the U.S. Army designed around drawing people to the Army? You mean it portrays the Army as the good guy? Shocking! I'm dumbfounded.

2) Does he mention say the biggest war game of recent memory, Call of Duty 4? Ya know, the one where you spend most of your time as a BRITISH SAS soldier? The one where the Americans get their asses handed to them by a nuclear bomb? The one where Nicolai goes "The Americans are making a mistake, they'll never take Al-Asad alive!"

"2) Does he mention say the biggest war game of recent memory, Call of Duty 4? Ya know, the one where you spend most of your time as a BRITISH SAS soldier? The one where the Americans get their asses handed to them by a nuclear bomb? The one where Nicolai goes "The Americans are making a mistake, they'll never take Al-Asad alive!"
You mean the very same game where 99% of the arabs shown were either terrorists or violent psychopaths? Except for a few "good" civilians who get shot in the beginning? And the Russians are either incompetent (hell, they even need the British SAS to sort out their problems) or just another bunch of terrorists and violent psychopaths?
The fact alone that those terrorists could get an atomic bomb so easily said clearly "the Russians are incompetent, we should take away their weapons - or take action". Yeah, most action films pretty much do those things the very same way, but then again, why shouldn't they also be considered propaganda? (BLACK HAWK DOWN anyone?)
And the "British point of view" reminded me a lot of GUNGA DIN* - Britannia must take action, bad Arabs and Russians die by the dozen and the few good, but weak Russians should get out of the way.
ZAR.
*http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/9014/gunga-din/

We're making up for all the times that the Japanese use us as the "Evil Foreigner" in anime and manga. Wether you need a whole tyranical country to fight against, or just a douchebag exchange student to hate, America is the favorite choice of Japanese writers.

What I'm saying is, you write what works with your audience. Yeah, most US-based war games let Americans be the heroes. When the Japanese write war fiction, they get to be the heroes. The only difference is the ammount of giant robots.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned action movies yet as they've been the same for decades - at least the 80s with the same style of ragtag Middle Eastern terrorists as those aforementioned AK-47 wielding manaics. Iron-Man is a recent example, though at least Stark gains an Egyptian ally (Y'know, to show a bit of balance and all) and later on saves some Afghan civilians. Meanwhile, the movie couldn't show the US army in a remotely negatory manner as that was the only way to get their assistance and permission to use their hardware in the movie.

For games, I'd love to see something more interesting to these modern conflicts, though, rather than mere run and gunning. Deus Ex springs to mind ("What good's an honest soldier if he's ordered to behave like a terrorist?"), though if that was in a modern context then maybe there'd be an outcry in the US over a player being able to go against the current government.

I've read that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are taught the cultural basics of the areas they go in to - imagine that translated to a game where your team is sent in to a village and must calmly negotiate a peaceful resolution to a situation, where if you fail (By acting aggressively and waving your weapons about) then shooting breaks out and all sides will take casualties. That wouldn't be the basis of a game but could be an interesting alternative for players to consider.

"The cityscapes are marked as primitive space. They show no sign of ordinary life or ordinary people … "

Placed within the context of the (understandable) allegation that American-made wargames are also American-made propaganda, this would seem to indicate that this is an intentional design decision, designed to eliminate the realities of war and civilian casualties from the landscape.

However, this is generally a feature of most such games, regardless of developer or political perspective.

In Halo 2 and Halo 3, aliens from outer space invade a city in Africa. Those environments are also simple, primitive, and devoid of ordinary life. Because ordinary life steals processor cycles you need for enemies, vehicles and allies. Unless the presentation of such an environment is central to the game's design (as it is in Assassin's Creed, for example) you can expect such elements to be removed or minimized, not for political reasons, but for technical ones.

someone already posted it, but this is an American game, made for the majority of american/english audience (ie: Europe, Canada, and maybe Australia if they tone down the violence). So it goes without saying that the game would be protrayed as such. If not...well I'd hate to see what those crazy activists would do.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

(Note that I only did a quick skimming, so feel free to point out inconsistencies/errors)

I disagree with this guy. America's Army is made with the help of the army, so of COURSE it'd be propagandic towards Americans. That's like saying that Army-sponsered posters would be propagandic towards Americans. DUH.

As for other games, I still disagree. There haven't been a boatload of recent games to use as a reference, and most feature both American characters and characters from other nations. Seeing as it's an American-made game, it'd make sense that many characters are American (there aren't a lot of military forces to take the part of besides SAS, USMC, USAF, US Army, and a few other not-quite-as-well-known military groups). We clearly wouldn't be playing as bad guys, and the common bad guy to fight nowadays is terrorist, and most terrorist organizations today are religious extremists or ultranationalists. So, there aren't a lot of realistic ways to make a military game around our time period without having American or British or Russian military forces on the good side.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

This approach is a bit too close to Lyndon LaRouche-type conspiracy theory. The US government has hardly gotten around to nationalizing the games industry (yet).

Back during the 1990's when Japanese games dominated the console space, games were rife with Japanese-oriented characters and sensibilities. Are we to argue that characters like Ryu (Street Fighter) to be propaganda for the idealized Japanese concept of "Indominitable Samurai Spirit"?

I've never been amused when many so-called intellectual-types try to find grand schemes behind everything. They often seem unable to comprehend that cultrues are hardly the malleable, controlled, and inorganic entities they think them to be. This mindset is the same that produced the belief that our cultures are secretly and deliberately run by people of certian strata- hence idiotic concepts like the "patriarchy".

The games industry of today is hardly run by the US military. Relax and go back to your hemp and hackey sack.

I wonder if he has tired Mercenaries, which did a good job of having daily life stuff in it.

I actually found his comments interesting, though in many ways they are basicly just a summary of the state of things rather then really diving into the underlying causes. Either way it is interesting stuff.

I do know from a technical perspective, throwing in good 'daily life' AIs into an FPS is a headache and tends to eat CPU.

Hrm. I can not find any actual mention of 'propaganda' from the guy though. I wonder if this is another case of the new GP editor putting words in people's mouths again or misrepresenting the other side (for instance, painting the voice actor contract in terms of making overpaid actors richer).

I think GP needs to take a step back on the headline commentary a bit.

Of course he didn't go into the underlying cause. The fact that these so-called "Pro-America" games sell, while a (for lack of a better term) "Anti-America" game most likely wouldn't, would totally destroy the point he's trying to make.

I'd be pretty confident to say that the reason American War games generally feature American soldiers defeating foriegn adversaries is because that's what sells in America. I mean, in all reality, we are bombarded left and right with propaganda and are funneled into the frame of mind that the US is always the "Good guy" and those Asian, African, Middle Eastern, or Russian guys with the AK-47's are the "Bad Guys."

The socio-political reasons why the American soldier is there doesn't matter, because he is there to kill those Communist, Socialist, Muslim-Extremist, Terrorist Maniacs. That's the whole reason games like that sell. I can't imagine that a game where you played as a muslim defending your country from American invaders would sell very well. It's just not parallel to the socially accepted way of thinking in this country.

In fact, even in games where you are given a choice between the USMC and other foreign powers, like in Battlefield 2, there were plenty of people who would leave the game if they were autobalanced onto the non-US side. They would literally refuse to play as the enemy, because thats "Anti-American."

So, yeah.. As interesting as it may be to study, I wouldn't be so quick to call American FPS's "Propaganda." I mean, these companies are just making a product with the best chance to appeal to the mouthbreathing "USA! USA! USA!! Kill the Iraqis!!" crowd that makes up a large amount of the American population.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

Wymorence: For me it just boils down to the fact that, even at a giant company, when a game comes out annually it just gives it a vibe of being rushed out the door. And god knows Unity sucked some major lemur with all its bugs...03/31/2015 - 4:22pm

PHX Corp: I launched my spotify account today, and I kinda went a little overboard with adding music03/31/2015 - 3:59pm

Sora-Chan: Con't. Games like AC are a pain to someone like me who likes to play games in order. So when a game gets too many releases too quickly, it puts me off. Only exceptions are games that have no interconnected underlying stories like the FF games.03/31/2015 - 2:53pm

Sora-Chan: Wikipedia has rarely let me down on matters like this. But yeah... AC needs a break.. like two.. or three... or eight years.03/31/2015 - 2:51pm

Conster: There's 9 already?! I think I played 1, 2, and the ones inbetween 2 and 3.03/31/2015 - 2:23pm

Sora-Chan: Con't There are now Nine... of just the main entries into the series. There are 13 more in the "other games" department.03/31/2015 - 2:15pm

Sora-Chan: I tried to get into AC. Was having a decent time with the first one, at which point they had already released three titles. Then a fourth came out... then a fifth... the wall kept growing before I could finish the first.03/31/2015 - 2:14pm

Daniel Lewis: I think ubisoft should give AC a break before it's milked to death,and i'm a big fan of the games03/31/2015 - 1:15pm

Daniel Lewis: The only thing said i disagree with is the final quote on Men's experiences are seen to be universal but women are gendered,though doesn't anita say that games with male protagonists are male power fantasies,so in turn both are gendered03/31/2015 - 1:08pm

Daniel Lewis: i found the video to be much better than any of the TvW series and it's about time the positive women are put in the spotlight03/31/2015 - 1:06pm

Daniel Lewis: So feministfrequency released a positive female character video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXmj2yJNUmQ03/31/2015 - 1:05pm

Daniel Lewis: I think the guy who made the direct leak said it was an april fools joke when a real one was announced03/31/2015 - 12:43pm

MaskedPixelante: No way Nintendo would let information like that get out. Remember, they shut down a memoir about the localization of Earthbound by enforcing a 20 year old NDA on the author.03/31/2015 - 12:42pm

james_fudge: Conster: the larger issue is that Ind. does not protect LGBTQ+ people under state law03/31/2015 - 12:11pm

PHX Corp: @MP I think it is confirmed(not an April Fools joke) http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/31/nintendo-direct-confirmed-for-wednesday-april-1st/03/31/2015 - 12:00pm

Conster: Apparently Pence intends to amend SB101 so denying service isn't allowed - without explicitly protecting LGBT+ and while still allowing the many other things you can get away with now if it's motivated by your religious beliefs.03/31/2015 - 11:53am

MaskedPixelante: http://mynintendonews.com/2015/03/30/rumour-nintendo-direct-on-april-1st/ A supposed full leak of tomorrow's Nintendo Direct, so you can all laugh and laugh about how wrong it is.03/31/2015 - 11:35am

PHX Corp: http://kotaku.com/why-a-tekken-7-character-is-being-called-a-phoney-1694724959 Why a Tekken 7 Character Is Being Called a Phoney03/31/2015 - 10:08am